Wednesday, June 22, 2016
Been a Long Time
Money dominates politics, and no one seems to put more money into that than the Koch brothers. It's amazing how these billionaires can almost take over the whole political affairs of the country, at least on the Republican side. They backed the so-called tea party, and now we have Trump running for office, the Republican candidate. But the Koch brothers don't like Trump. Yet they created the tea party and the Republican non-establishment base that has brought Trump to this point. They have created their own monster.
Sunday, February 17, 2013
6,000 Years Old
The other day I asked the students in one of my classes if anyone believed that the Earth is about 6,000 years old. I usually get around to asking this question during the term. This time I had a record number of students saying that they believe this. Six students shot up their hands acknowledging that they believed that the Earth is about 6,000 years old. Usually, I might get two.
I don't ask the question to start up some debate. In my experience, that would be a very harsh experience for many of them. I just bring it up for my own information and to let other students in the class know about the extreme views that other people can have. Many are astonished to find out that anyone believes this, let alone fellow college students.
About all I do is mention that if you believe this, then you have a lot of counter evidence to explain away. For instance, you have to explain the fossil record and the geological record. Just mentioning this prompts a heated defense from some of the believers. I just leave it at that, because it all turns into a hopeless debate that leaves students with bad feelings. But I might respond a little bit to their defense. I might point out that their view implies that most of science has to be tossed out. In the end, I just teach the class and hope that it opens their minds up enough to get them to think critically about their views and maybe change them later.
This indicates what an odd situation I'm in -- we are all in.
I don't ask the question to start up some debate. In my experience, that would be a very harsh experience for many of them. I just bring it up for my own information and to let other students in the class know about the extreme views that other people can have. Many are astonished to find out that anyone believes this, let alone fellow college students.
About all I do is mention that if you believe this, then you have a lot of counter evidence to explain away. For instance, you have to explain the fossil record and the geological record. Just mentioning this prompts a heated defense from some of the believers. I just leave it at that, because it all turns into a hopeless debate that leaves students with bad feelings. But I might respond a little bit to their defense. I might point out that their view implies that most of science has to be tossed out. In the end, I just teach the class and hope that it opens their minds up enough to get them to think critically about their views and maybe change them later.
This indicates what an odd situation I'm in -- we are all in.
GOP Decline
The GOP has become so odd that it is becoming very tiresome to analyze them politically. They seem to be follow the shallowest ideas and the lowest political motives. They seem to be a party completely controlled by some faction of corporate power that aims to control as much of politics and society as they can with no concern for democracy or public good, or anything that doesn't fully realize their own interests and their own ideological view of the world. The only thing interesting about it is to see how blatant this all is.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
EME 1310
I'm taking this professional development class. I am familiar with some of the tools that we are covering, but certainly not all of them.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Bipartisanship
The GOP is talking a lot about biparisanship after Obama said that he wanted bipartisan support for the stimulus legislation. Republicans are accusing the Democrats of not being bipartisan in the matter. They accuse the Democrats of not giving them a chance to weigh in on the bill. The Republicans want tax cuts. But the Democrats want to place their bets primarily on spending programs to jumpstart the economy. The bill supposedly doesn't have the tax cuts that the Republicans want, and they claim that it is because the Democrats have not been bipartisan. But what do the two parties mean by bipartisanship with regard to this bill? At least two interpretations come to mind.
First, bipartisanship could mean that the bill should contain both party's solutions equally. The bill should be split in half and contain each party's solution to the stimulus problem. On this view of bipartisanship, the parties do not have to engage in any real debate about what to do. That's a good way to look at it if discussion is pointless because you have no intention of changing your mind about anything, no matter what the evidence, and you want your ideas put in place. It's good if your only intention in discussion is to persuade the other side to think like you do. It's good if you want to avoid rational critical discussion of the alternatives because the arguments for your ideas are weaker than those for the alternative. It is good if you think that no clear solution is obtainable, that there's not enough evidence to decide who is right -- so we might as well split it down the middle. Perhaps some Republicans have this view of bipartisanship in mind. Rush Limbaugh said that since Obama won the election by around 6 percentage points, the stimulus should be 53% spending, what the Democrats prefer, and 47% tax cuts, what the Republicans want.
Second, bipartisanship could mean that the bill should contain the best solutions that the two parties can arrive at after having a rational, critical debate about the alternatives. This means that members of both parties have to come to the debate with open minds, realizing that an honest search for the truth may require changing or rejecting one's views.
First, bipartisanship could mean that the bill should contain both party's solutions equally. The bill should be split in half and contain each party's solution to the stimulus problem. On this view of bipartisanship, the parties do not have to engage in any real debate about what to do. That's a good way to look at it if discussion is pointless because you have no intention of changing your mind about anything, no matter what the evidence, and you want your ideas put in place. It's good if your only intention in discussion is to persuade the other side to think like you do. It's good if you want to avoid rational critical discussion of the alternatives because the arguments for your ideas are weaker than those for the alternative. It is good if you think that no clear solution is obtainable, that there's not enough evidence to decide who is right -- so we might as well split it down the middle. Perhaps some Republicans have this view of bipartisanship in mind. Rush Limbaugh said that since Obama won the election by around 6 percentage points, the stimulus should be 53% spending, what the Democrats prefer, and 47% tax cuts, what the Republicans want.
Second, bipartisanship could mean that the bill should contain the best solutions that the two parties can arrive at after having a rational, critical debate about the alternatives. This means that members of both parties have to come to the debate with open minds, realizing that an honest search for the truth may require changing or rejecting one's views.
Sunday, February 08, 2009
Krugman and Stimulus Package
From Paul Krugman today:
February 7, 2009, 5:36 pm — Updated: 5:36 pm
What the centrists have wrought
I’m still working on the numbers, but I’ve gotten a fair number of requests for comment on the Senate version of the stimulus.
The short answer: to appease the centrists, a plan that was already too small and too focused on ineffective tax cuts has been made significantly smaller, and even more focused on tax cuts.
According to the CBO’s estimates, we’re facing an output shortfall of almost 14% of GDP over the next two years, or around $2 trillion. Others, such as Goldman Sachs, are even more pessimistic. So the original $800 billion plan was too small, especially because a substantial share consisted of tax cuts that probably would have added little to demand. The plan should have been at least 50% larger.
Now the centrists have shaved off $86 billion in spending — much of it among the most effective and most needed parts of the plan. In particular, aid to state governments, which are in desperate straits, is both fast — because it prevents spending cuts rather than having to start up new projects — and effective, because it would in fact be spent; plus state and local governments are cutting back on essentials, so the social value of this spending would be high. But in the name of mighty centrism, $40 billion of that aid has been cut out.
My first cut says that the changes to the Senate bill will ensure that we have at least 600,000 fewer Americans employed over the next two years.
The real question now is whether Obama will be able to come back for more once it’s clear that the plan is way inadequate. My guess is no. This is really, really bad.
February 7, 2009, 5:36 pm — Updated: 5:36 pm
What the centrists have wrought
I’m still working on the numbers, but I’ve gotten a fair number of requests for comment on the Senate version of the stimulus.
The short answer: to appease the centrists, a plan that was already too small and too focused on ineffective tax cuts has been made significantly smaller, and even more focused on tax cuts.
According to the CBO’s estimates, we’re facing an output shortfall of almost 14% of GDP over the next two years, or around $2 trillion. Others, such as Goldman Sachs, are even more pessimistic. So the original $800 billion plan was too small, especially because a substantial share consisted of tax cuts that probably would have added little to demand. The plan should have been at least 50% larger.
Now the centrists have shaved off $86 billion in spending — much of it among the most effective and most needed parts of the plan. In particular, aid to state governments, which are in desperate straits, is both fast — because it prevents spending cuts rather than having to start up new projects — and effective, because it would in fact be spent; plus state and local governments are cutting back on essentials, so the social value of this spending would be high. But in the name of mighty centrism, $40 billion of that aid has been cut out.
My first cut says that the changes to the Senate bill will ensure that we have at least 600,000 fewer Americans employed over the next two years.
The real question now is whether Obama will be able to come back for more once it’s clear that the plan is way inadequate. My guess is no. This is really, really bad.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
The Death of My Dear Father
My father died yesterday July 30, 2008 at about 10:30pm. He was 90 years old, born May 5, 1918.
He died after about a week in the hospital. The first day or so, the doctors thought that he had gout. But they began to suspect an infection. I called his room and talked to him briefly. He was very agitated and complained that he could not even remember his social security number. He told me that Mary, a woman who lived next door and who was a CNA, was staying with him at night so that my mother could go home and rest. (Mary saw me the next day and said that he liked my father. They talked. My father told her that since they were going to be together for some time that they should leave some things to talk about. Dad told her that next time they would talk about war. My father retired a Major after being in the Army for 20 years and serving in WWII and Korea.) He told me that I need to talk to my mother because he was too busy. I could hear him yelling at someone in the room not to do what they were doing, whatever it was -- like moving a pillow. He was in pain. This was the last time I ever talked to him.
The next day he went unconsious. They discovered that he had a bacterial infection, and it went into his blood stream. The bacteria was a dangerious E.coli bug (ESBL producing), and only one antibiotic could kill it. So he had what they call "septicemia," or blood poisoning -- to use a more common name. Unfortunately, this condition is very dangerous and advances rapidly, especially in the elderly. Any delay in treatment can be deadly. The bacteria "seated" (it is called) into many, if not all of his major joints. This is very unusual. Once the infection gets into a joint, it becomes very difficult to kill the infection. I was told that some people have to take antibiotics for months. Once it is in the joints, the pain is very intense, like gout, and one is unable to move the affected limbs. My father, if he recovered, would have faced many weeks of rehabilitation and would have to be confined to a nursing home for the rest of his life. One of my brothers, who happens to be a doctor at Johns Hopkins, told me that our father also had Mutiple Myeloma, which can seriously reduce the ability of his immune system to fight infections.
The treatment was to drain his joints, if they had infection in them, and give him the antibiotic that could kill this bacteria. My father never regained full consciousness enough to speak and communicate. I saw him after the operation. I had to wear a gown and gloves. I told him I was there, that I loved him, that they drained his knee, and that he was okay. He responded to me. His pulse rate went up, and lights went on. He seemed to try to speak, and his eyes were slightly open. When I told him to relax, that he was okay, his pulse rate went down. They pulled the respirator tube out of him, and I watched him respond to the nurse. He breathed in when they told him to. He attempted to cough when they asked him to. That was the best condition that I saw him in, as things went down from there. My main concern was to tell him that I loved him. As I write this, I wish that I had stayed with him longer and talked to him at this time.
He was in the ICU for four days (if I remember correctly) after that and then my brother called telling me to come now because dad was not going to make it. I was with my dad the last two days, as were my mother, my two bothers, and their wives. Dad died Wednesday night. My big brother and mom were with him when he died. Me and my other brother arrived 10 minutes later. We entered the room and the four of us together stayed for a while with the body of my dear father. (I will write more later.)
He died after about a week in the hospital. The first day or so, the doctors thought that he had gout. But they began to suspect an infection. I called his room and talked to him briefly. He was very agitated and complained that he could not even remember his social security number. He told me that Mary, a woman who lived next door and who was a CNA, was staying with him at night so that my mother could go home and rest. (Mary saw me the next day and said that he liked my father. They talked. My father told her that since they were going to be together for some time that they should leave some things to talk about. Dad told her that next time they would talk about war. My father retired a Major after being in the Army for 20 years and serving in WWII and Korea.) He told me that I need to talk to my mother because he was too busy. I could hear him yelling at someone in the room not to do what they were doing, whatever it was -- like moving a pillow. He was in pain. This was the last time I ever talked to him.
The next day he went unconsious. They discovered that he had a bacterial infection, and it went into his blood stream. The bacteria was a dangerious E.coli bug (ESBL producing), and only one antibiotic could kill it. So he had what they call "septicemia," or blood poisoning -- to use a more common name. Unfortunately, this condition is very dangerous and advances rapidly, especially in the elderly. Any delay in treatment can be deadly. The bacteria "seated" (it is called) into many, if not all of his major joints. This is very unusual. Once the infection gets into a joint, it becomes very difficult to kill the infection. I was told that some people have to take antibiotics for months. Once it is in the joints, the pain is very intense, like gout, and one is unable to move the affected limbs. My father, if he recovered, would have faced many weeks of rehabilitation and would have to be confined to a nursing home for the rest of his life. One of my brothers, who happens to be a doctor at Johns Hopkins, told me that our father also had Mutiple Myeloma, which can seriously reduce the ability of his immune system to fight infections.
The treatment was to drain his joints, if they had infection in them, and give him the antibiotic that could kill this bacteria. My father never regained full consciousness enough to speak and communicate. I saw him after the operation. I had to wear a gown and gloves. I told him I was there, that I loved him, that they drained his knee, and that he was okay. He responded to me. His pulse rate went up, and lights went on. He seemed to try to speak, and his eyes were slightly open. When I told him to relax, that he was okay, his pulse rate went down. They pulled the respirator tube out of him, and I watched him respond to the nurse. He breathed in when they told him to. He attempted to cough when they asked him to. That was the best condition that I saw him in, as things went down from there. My main concern was to tell him that I loved him. As I write this, I wish that I had stayed with him longer and talked to him at this time.
He was in the ICU for four days (if I remember correctly) after that and then my brother called telling me to come now because dad was not going to make it. I was with my dad the last two days, as were my mother, my two bothers, and their wives. Dad died Wednesday night. My big brother and mom were with him when he died. Me and my other brother arrived 10 minutes later. We entered the room and the four of us together stayed for a while with the body of my dear father. (I will write more later.)
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Bush Repeats the Same Nonsense Over and Over
In response to the Congress holding an all-night debate on a measure that would begin withdrawal from Iraq, Bush states the following.
President Bush: "Al Qaeda would have been a heck of a lot stronger today had we not stayed on the offense, and it is in the interest of the United States to defeat them overseas so we don't have to face them here, but to also spread an ideology that will defeat their ideology every time, and that is the ideology based upon liberty."
Why is it that the president can repeat such nonsense over and over and never be challenged on it in the mainstream media? All intelligence agencies say that the war in Iraq has increased terrorism around the world and has recruited more jihadists for Al Qaeda and other terrorists groups. The attack on Iraq has made Al Qaeda stronger, just the opposite of what Bush says. Second, there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq, so attacking Iraq doesn't have much to do with attacking Al Qaeda. Third, contrary to what Bush thinks, the jihadists have an ideology that is ultimately based on liberty, too. Bin Laden's liberty, as he states, is the liberty of God's plan (as explained in the Koran). True freedom, according to Bin Laden, is to follow God's plan. It is funny, but Bush wouild probably say the same thing as Bin Laden -- but point to the Bible. What Bush means is that we value a political philosophy (liberalism) that is based on political liberty, and that will always beat Al Qaeda's ideology.
But here is the problem. Al Qaeda's ideology cannot be separated from its deeply religious message of freedom. To beat Al Qaeda's ideology is to defeat the Islamic faith itself and its message of freedom, and it is implausible to think that Muslims will give up that message of freedom after seeing our liberty! The problem is that our liberty can't be separated from our greedy corporate capitalism, our empirialistic militarism, our souless consummerism, and our shameful moral relativistism. Our liberty, as great a message as it is, comes weighted down with a big pile of baggage that is not essential to it but expresses our own (unfortunate) realization of that liberty. What Muslim, especially Bin Laden types, can see that core idea of liberty independent of all this ugly realization of the liberty? Is this the liberty that devout true Muslims will flock to? Not at all, if Qtub is correct. Qtub is a very influential Muslim thinker who went to America and saw the American way of liberty. He was disgusted with the American way of life, and wrote that the true Muslim would never accept this American way of life. Islamic extremists are especially very familiar with Qtub's writings. So contrary to what Bush seems to think, Muslim's have already looked carefully at America and have rejected its ideology, because they rejected the ugly consequences of our example of it. How does the destruction of Iraq and the killing of their families lead Muslims to join the American ideology? What Muslim will cheer corporate capitalism after seeing its attempts to take over Iraqi oil? How can obscenity and pornography and the exploitation of sex in culture lead a Muslim to the American ideology? How can mindless consummerism and materialism pursuade the true Muslim to adopt our great liberty? It can't happen that way.
Our liberty-based ideology will always defeat their ideology because our ideology can kill better than theirs. That's what Bush really means to say.
President Bush: "Al Qaeda would have been a heck of a lot stronger today had we not stayed on the offense, and it is in the interest of the United States to defeat them overseas so we don't have to face them here, but to also spread an ideology that will defeat their ideology every time, and that is the ideology based upon liberty."
Why is it that the president can repeat such nonsense over and over and never be challenged on it in the mainstream media? All intelligence agencies say that the war in Iraq has increased terrorism around the world and has recruited more jihadists for Al Qaeda and other terrorists groups. The attack on Iraq has made Al Qaeda stronger, just the opposite of what Bush says. Second, there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq, so attacking Iraq doesn't have much to do with attacking Al Qaeda. Third, contrary to what Bush thinks, the jihadists have an ideology that is ultimately based on liberty, too. Bin Laden's liberty, as he states, is the liberty of God's plan (as explained in the Koran). True freedom, according to Bin Laden, is to follow God's plan. It is funny, but Bush wouild probably say the same thing as Bin Laden -- but point to the Bible. What Bush means is that we value a political philosophy (liberalism) that is based on political liberty, and that will always beat Al Qaeda's ideology.
But here is the problem. Al Qaeda's ideology cannot be separated from its deeply religious message of freedom. To beat Al Qaeda's ideology is to defeat the Islamic faith itself and its message of freedom, and it is implausible to think that Muslims will give up that message of freedom after seeing our liberty! The problem is that our liberty can't be separated from our greedy corporate capitalism, our empirialistic militarism, our souless consummerism, and our shameful moral relativistism. Our liberty, as great a message as it is, comes weighted down with a big pile of baggage that is not essential to it but expresses our own (unfortunate) realization of that liberty. What Muslim, especially Bin Laden types, can see that core idea of liberty independent of all this ugly realization of the liberty? Is this the liberty that devout true Muslims will flock to? Not at all, if Qtub is correct. Qtub is a very influential Muslim thinker who went to America and saw the American way of liberty. He was disgusted with the American way of life, and wrote that the true Muslim would never accept this American way of life. Islamic extremists are especially very familiar with Qtub's writings. So contrary to what Bush seems to think, Muslim's have already looked carefully at America and have rejected its ideology, because they rejected the ugly consequences of our example of it. How does the destruction of Iraq and the killing of their families lead Muslims to join the American ideology? What Muslim will cheer corporate capitalism after seeing its attempts to take over Iraqi oil? How can obscenity and pornography and the exploitation of sex in culture lead a Muslim to the American ideology? How can mindless consummerism and materialism pursuade the true Muslim to adopt our great liberty? It can't happen that way.
Our liberty-based ideology will always defeat their ideology because our ideology can kill better than theirs. That's what Bush really means to say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)